[normhead]

Technically its perfectly possible to have 42 Megapixels with 12fps burst shooting (WITH!- AF tracking working perfectly between shots)

Really, where has it been done? When you use the term "technically" we expect a technical reference. Saying "well it 's technically possible but no one's done it" always leads to the question "Then why has no one done it." The answer, hidden in the depths of the design teams' workshops is, "It's not technically possible, but outsiders might look at a few specs and think it is." or "It's technically possible but it would be way too expensive to be commercially viable."

I personally, for my wildlife etc images am not interested in either factor burst rate or better AF. I'm happy with he price of my current gear and don't anticipate wanting to pay more for "upgraded" features.

Lousy Pentax AF and frame rate?
Ya, right. Whatever you say. Here's what I say.

Terrible tracking.


Part of a 23 shot sequence with the first 20 images in perfect focus. The last three were probably less than minimum focussing distance.




People recite nonsense. The images say something else.

What do the Canikon users say about these images, they say I cheated somehow. They make up excuses why they are no good or don't count. What a bunch of losers. If you want to tell me your camera is better, show me better images. Not a bunch of theoretical nonsense. Canikon AF in some models is probably better than Pentax, but if you get the images you want, then the money you'd pay for that faster AF etc. is wasted. You could have the same or better image with a Pentax. It's more about the photographer than it is about the camera.

---

Last edited by normhead; 09-03-2017 at 09:21 AM.

[photoptimist]

I'm with normhead on this issue. I find the K-1's AF to be excellent even if other cameras might be excellenter.

Sony's A9 (24 MP @ 20 FPS) shows that pixel clocks of 480 MPix/sec are possible which seems to imply that 42 MP @ 11.4 FPS might be possible. But only Sony knows if it's read-out system is scalable to the 32% increase in the number of rows and 32% increase in pixels per row that are required for a 42 MPix sensor. It's a "definite may be" with the proviso that such a sensor does not yet exist. Moreover, it's important to note that Pentax has generally favored high DR over high FPS in it's sensor choice and sensor tuning which suggests Pentax probably won't pick the fastest possible sensor from among the choices.

Personally, I don't need faster AF, more AF points, or deeper buffers (or more MP). In fact, more AF points would be a disadvantage given the user interface issues with navigating a larger array of points. Faster bursts might be nice because it would accelerate pixel-shift captures (reducing motion artifacts) but going beyond 7 to 8 FPS wouldn't be worth much to me.

[patarok]

If you repeat yourself, i will also have to repeat.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOUR SKILLS THAT MAY BE GOOD, NOR IS THIS ABOUT A FEW END RESULTS.

Pls be polite and stop reposting your pictures that dont say anything about the AF-behaviour of any Pentax DSLR.

We all know the restrictions of our AF-system.
Especially if one had the guts to seriously(- that includes reading the manual and use the cam for longer then 5min.) try some other system with up to date AF...
Even if you post a hundred of your photos, that will not change the facts.
(One cant "convince" hardware to work better, forget that. I also tried no success)

So it may be only 12fps at 42mp with nearly perfect AF-tracking, that are possible at the moment(Sony a99II-...spare yourself to refer to mirror speed restrictions -> D5...)to offer reasonable priced products, (the big makers that sit on a widespread userbase, better do well to keep one up their sleeves)
nonetheless that is not the point here.

AGAIN LOUD AND CLEAR: THIS IS NOT TECHNICAL DISCUSSION.


So again:

If you say:
Yes thats for me!

Give this Idea:
+1 from me
good idea
appreciate this.
or something alike

-----

If you say:
No i dont like the idea, I would rather like to have 42Megapixels but therefore only 3fps burst and a smaller buffer. And the same AF system as in the predecessor flagship or only slightly better.

Then give this idea:
-1
dont like the idea.
no, I dont like it.

.... Discussing around about: "what if, inbetween, workaround, c'mon s'ain bad" was not intended when i titled the thread:
Petition for Significantly Better AF and Faster Bursts Instead of Megapixel-Madness

[patarok]

I know, it may cause another sh...storm (and discussions about how i could dare to, and postings fed up with technical pseudo-knowledge) but i have to ask, since the thread still feels hot:

Since high ISO results improve, who would be willing to sacrifice SR(shake reduction) to gain better Autofocus?
feel free to comment on this in every way you like.
You can also post pictures you took with SR switched off...

nonetheless it would make me more/also happy if you just put your like or dislike about the threads actual idea,
in here straight ahead,
without any discussion about technical background or showing off your skills...

[yucafrita]

Many people shoot with SR off when the shutter speed allows it. So the question would be if SR is significantly affecting AF speed?

OTH, do petitions force Ricoh doing anything about AF? I dont think so (how long people complain about the crippled K-mount?). Ricoh offers you a tool. If you can manage it, fine. If not, look elsewhere for tools better fitting your needs. If there's none, adapt, work-around or build you own tool.

Anyway, I have no complains about AF speed on Pentax. Everyone has different tastes. I rather would welcome a slightly smaller FF body, like K5/K3 layout, even with less pixels, plus un-crippled K-mount for old, manual lenses including correct metering. Yes, for MF! However, I wont get this wish fulfilled. So what. I use what I have and work-around.

[Kunzite]

So the question would be if SR is significantly affecting AF speed?

If it would, we would notice it.

[patarok]

Many people shoot with SR off when the shutter speed allows it. So the question would be if SR is significantly affecting AF speed?

OTH, do petitions force Ricoh doing anything about AF? I dont think so (how long people complain about the crippled K-mount?). Ricoh offers you a tool. If you can manage it, fine. If not, look elsewhere for tools better fitting your needs. If there's none, adapt, work-around or build you own tool.

Anyway, I have no complains about AF speed on Pentax. Everyone has different tastes. I rather would welcome a slightly smaller FF body, like K5/K3 layout, even with less pixels, plus un-crippled K-mount for old, manual lenses including correct metering. Yes, for MF! However, I wont get this wish fulfilled. So what. I use what I have and work-around.

That is what i consider starting a technical discussion.

would it? would it not? you will not know until you have tried.

but anyway it seems like this is useless.
neither minus nor plus. not useful.

I think we maybe all coincide for once, when I say its better I'll ask an admin to close this "basket case" for good.

Thx for your attention!
And to everyone who thought about answering with a "like" but didnt dare to:
I totally understand you, no one likes to get tarred and feathered and flogged to death.

---

Last edited by patarok; 09-04-2017 at 03:12 AM.

[BigMackCam]

The OP's opinions have been clearly stated, and the replies and "likes" were equally clear.

There's no tarring, feathering and flogging to death here, by the way... These are friendly forums, and differences of opinion are both expected and respected

At the OP's request, I'll close the thread.